As each day of this 2016 election campaign progresses, the suspicion that Bill Shorten has a two-election strategy in mind, grows stronger.

By building his entire election pitch around increased spending on schools and hospitals, funded by higher taxes and potentially a longer deficit period - in contrast to Malcolm Turnbull's jobs and growth agenda based around company tax cuts - Shorten has broken with modern Labor's orthodox presentation as a centrist pro-business party committed to reducing taxes.

In addition to opposing Turnbull's company tax cut, Labor also plans to make permanent the temporary deficit repair levy, which would make the effective marginal tax rate for high income earners 49¢ in the dollar in perpetuity.

Advertisement

It is a calculated shift to the left, forsaking the wider appeal that comes with the rhetorical consensus on private wealth creation, in favour of the Laborist appeal of more public spending and an openly redistributive agenda.

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten on the campaign at a solar wholesale distributor in Brisbane. Credit:Alex Ellinghausen

Remember Kevin Rudd's 2007 claim to be a "fiscal conservative" backed up by his dramatic campaign taunt to John Howard that "this sort of reckless spending must stop"?

Not this time.

Transparently, Labor's pledge to put fairness before fiscal repair is an attempt to re-leverage the public odium of Tony Abbott's disastrously harsh 2014 budget and where possible, tie Turnbull to it - and its plethora of broken promises - as firmly as possible.

But it comes with a heavy price because it necessitates trenchant opposition to the new Liberal tax-cut agenda as much as it does to the old Abbott model of punitive welfare cuts. Moreover, it exposes Shorten Labor to the charge, now being increasingly made, that Labor has become unreservedly hostile to private capital.

Warming to this theme, Turnbull called Shorten "the most anti-business agenda of any Labor leader in a generation" on Wednesday. Even Wayne Swan declared the contest over company tax cuts and more spending amounted to "a class war in Australia".

Electorally, in the wake of the Rudd-Gillard years, Shorten's approach prioritises the reconnection of the ALP with its disillusioned base over attracting the extra middle-ground voters needed to win an election. And that in turn explains why insiders in both camps report Labor is doing better in its heartland - i.e. safe seats it already holds - than it is in the marginals where swinging voters will decide the election.

The result could be a repeat of 1998 - a sizeable swing to Labor for only a modest return of new seats. Yet for Shorten personally, that would bring an upwelling of affection from the Labor faithful, casting him as a defeated leader who had fought the good fight for "Labor" values - very useful if your challenger is the darling of the rank-and-file, the Left's Anthony Albanese.

All of this suggests Shorten may well be already thinking about his own survival as leader beyond the horizon. Don't expect him to use the term or even to accept the logic, but the inescapable conclusion is that he has a two-election strategy having concluded months ago that gaining the 19 Coalition seats needed to win on July 2 is unachievable.

Inevitably, he will deny this as he must. But such thinking would only be prudent.

Shorten is no fool, and knew full-well when seeking the leadership after the 2013 rout that it was potentially a poisoned chalice. No Labor leader has lasted a full term, let alone two, since Kim Beazley in the late 1990s - and that goes for two elected prime ministers as well.

Back then, Shorten would have assumed victory was a long-shot even against Abbott, but the advent of the more appealing Turnbull has made this one-term approach extremely difficult and the two-stage approach all the more realistic.